thousand regular troops under the command of the pashas of Salonica andThessaly, who forced the passes of the Vale of Tempe, and slew allbefore them. Chourchid Pasha, having his rear provided for, with thirtythousand men now passed through the defile of Thermopylae, appearedbefore Corinth, took its citadel, advanced to Argos, dispersed thegovernment which had established itself there, and then pursued hisvictorious career to Napoli di Romania, whose garrison he reinforced.But the summer sun dried up the surrounding plains; there was nothingleft on which his cavalry could feed, or his men either, and he foundhimself in a perilous position in the midst of victory.

The defeated Greeks now rallied under Ypsilanti and Kolokotronis, whoraised the siege of Corinth, and advanced against their foes with twelvethousand men. The Turkish army, decimated and in fear of starvation,resolved to cut their way through the guarded defiles, and succeededonly by the loss of seven thousand men, with all their baggage andmilitary stores. The Morea was delivered from the oppressor, and theTurkish army of thirty thousand was destroyed. Chourchid Pasha was soonafter seized with dysentery, brought about by fatigue and anxiety, towhich he succumbed; and the ablest general yet sent against the Greeksfailed disastrously, to the joy of the nation.

This great success was followed by others. The Acropolis of Athenscapitulated to the victorious Greeks, not without the usual atrocities,and Attica, was recovered. But the mountains of Epirus were still filledwith Turkish troops, who advanced to lay siege to Missolonghi, defendedby a small garrison of four hundred men under Marco Bozzaris.Mavrokordatos contrived to come to his relief, and the town soon hadthree thousand defenders. Six times did the Turks attempt an assaultunder Omar Vrione; but each time they were repulsed with greatslaughter, and compelled to retreat. The Turkish general lost threequarters of his army, and with difficulty escaped himself in an openboat. Altogether twelve thousand Turks perished in this disastroussiege, with the loss of their artillery.

As the insurrection had now assumed formidable proportions in Cyprus andCandia, a general appeal was made to Mussulmans of those islands, whosenumbers greatly exceeded the rebels. Twenty-five thousand men ralliedaround the standards of the Moslems; but they were driven into theirfortresses, leaving both plains and mountains in the hands ofthe Greeks.

These brave insurgents gained still another great success in thismemorable campaign. They carried the important fortress of Napoli diRomania by escalade December 12, under Kolokotronis, with ten thousandmen, and the garrison, weakened by famine, capitulated. Four hundredpieces of cannon, with large stores of ammunition, were the reward ofthe victors. This conquest was the more remarkable since a large Turkishfleet was sent to the relief of the fortress; but fearing the fire-shipsof the Greeks, the Turkish admiral sailed away without doing anything,and cast anchor in the bay of Tenedos. Here he was attacked by the Greekfire-ships, commanded by Canaris, and his fleet were obliged to cuttheir cables and sail back to the Dardanelles, with the loss of theirlargest ships. The conqueror was crowned with laurel at Ipsara by hisgrateful countrymen, and the campaign of 1822 closed, leaving theGreeks masters of the sea and of nearly the whole of their territory.

This campaign, considering the inequality of forces, is regarded byAlison as one of the most glorious in the annals of war. A population ofseven hundred thousand souls had confronted and beaten the splendidstrength of the Ottoman Empire, with twenty-five millions of Mussulmans.They had destroyed four-fifths of an army of fifty thousand men, andmade themselves masters of their principal strongholds. Twice had theydriven the Turkish fleets from the Aegean Sea with the loss of theirfinest ships. But Greece, during the two years' warfare, had lost twohundred thousand inhabitants,--not slain in battle, but massacred, andkilled by various inhumanities. It was clear that the country could notmuch longer bear such a strain, unless the great Powers of Europe cameto its relief.

But no relief came. Canning, who ruled England, sympathized with theGreeks, but would not depart from his policy of non-intervention,fearing to embroil all Europe in war. It was the same with Louis XVIII.,who feared the stability of his throne and dared not offend Austria, wholooked on the contest with indifference as a rebellious insurrection.Prussia took the same ground; and even Russia stood aloof, unpreparedfor war with the Turks, which would have immediately resulted if theCzar had rendered assistance to the Greeks. Never was a nation ingreater danger of annihilation, in spite of its glorious resistance,than was Greece at that time, for what could the remaining five hundredthousand people do against twenty-five millions inspired with fanaticalhatred, but to sell their lives as dearly as they might? The contest waslike that of the Maccabees against the overwhelming armies of Syria.

As was to be expected, the disgraceful defeat of his fleets and armiesfilled the Sultan with rage and renewed resolution. The whole power ofhis empire was now called out to suppress the rebellion. He had longmeditated the destruction of that famous military corps in the Turkishservice known as the Janizaries, who were not Turks, but recruited fromthe youth of the Greeks and other subject races captured in war. Theyhad all become Mussulmans, and were superb fighters; but their insultsand insolence, engendered by their traditional pride in the prestige ofthe corps and the favor shown them by successive Sultans, filled Mahmoudwith wrath. The Sultan dissembled his resentment, however, in order tobring all the soldiers he could command to the utter destruction of hisrebellious subjects. He deposed his grand vizier, and sent orders to allthe pashas in his dominions for a general levy of all Mussulmansbetween fifteen and fifty, to assemble in Thessaly in May, 1823. He alsomade the utmost efforts to repair the disasters of his fleet.

The Greeks, too, made corresponding exertions to maintain their armies.Though weakened, they were not despondent. Their successes had filledthem with new hopes and energies. Their independence seemed to them tobe established. They even began to despise their foes. But as soon assuccess seemed to have crowned their efforts they were subject to a newdanger. There were divisions, strifes, and jealousies between thechieftains. Unity, so essential in war, was seriously jeoparded. Hadthey remained united, and buried their resentments and jealousies in thecause of patriotism, their independence possibly might have beenacknowledged. But in the absence of a central power the various generalswished to fight on their own account, like guerilla chiefs. They wouldnot even submit to the National Assembly. The leaders were so full ofdiscords and personal ambition that they would not unite on anything.Mavrokordatos and Ypsilanti were not on speaking terms. One is naturallyastonished at such suicidal courses, but he forgets what a powerfulpassion jealousy is in the human soul. It was not absent from our ownwar of Independence, in which at one time rival generals would havesupplanted, if possible, even Washington himself; indeed, it is presenteverywhere, not in war alone, but among all influential and ambitiouspeople,--women of society, legislators, artists, physicians, singers,actors, even clergymen, authors, and professors in colleges. Thisunfortunate passion can be kept down only by the overpowering dominancyof transcendent ability, which everybody must concede, when envy isturned into admiration,--as in the case of Napoleon. There was no onechieftain among the Greeks who called out universal homage any more thanthere was in the camp of Agamemnon before the walls of Troy. There weremen of ability and patriotism and virtue; but, as already noted, no oneof them was great enough to exact universal and willing obedience. Andthis fact was well understood in all the cabinets of Europe, as well asin the camps of their enemies. The disunions and dissensions of therival Greek generals were of more advantage to the Turks than a force offifty thousand men.

These jealous chieftains, however, had reason to be startled in thespring of 1823, when they heard that eighty thousand Mussulmans were tobe sent to attack the Isthmus of Corinth; that forty thousand more wereto undertake the siege of Missolonghi; that fifty thousand in additionwere to co-operate in Thessaly and Attica; while a grand fleet of onehundred and twenty sail was to sweep the Aegean and reduce the revoltedislands. It was, however, the very magnitude of the hostile forces whichsaved the Greeks from impending ruin; for these forces had to be fed indried-up and devastated plains, under scorching suns, in the defiles ofmountains, where artillery was of no use, and where hardy mountaineers,behind rocks and precipices, could fire upon them unseen and withoutdanger. There was more loss from famine and pestilence than fromfoes,--a lesson repeatedly taught for three thousand years, but onewhich governments have ever been slow to learn. Alexander the Great hadlearned it when he invaded Persia with a small army of veterans, ratherthan with a mob of undisciplined allies. Huge armies are not to berelied on, except when they form a vast mechanism directed by a masterhand, when they are sure of their supplies, and when they operate in awholesome country, with nothing to fear from malaria or inclemency ofweather. Then they can crush all before them like some terrible andirresistible machine; but only then. This the old crusaders learned totheir cost, as well as the invading armies of Napoleon amid the snows ofRussia, and even the disciplined troops of France and England when theymarched to the siege of Sebastopol.

Hence, in spite of the divisions of the Greeks, which paralyzed theirbest efforts, the Turkish armies effected but little, great as weretheir numbers, in the campaign of 1823. The intrepid Marco Bozzaris,with only five thousand men, kept the Turks at bay in Epirus, and chaseda large body of Albanians to the sea; while Odysseus defended the passof Thermopylae, and prevented the advance of the Turks into SouthernGreece. The grand army destined for the invasion of the Morea graduallymelted away in attacking fortresses, and under the desultory actions ofguerilla bands amidst rocks and thickets. Bozzaris surprised a Turkisharmy near Missolonghi by a nocturnal attack, and although he himselfbravely perished, the attack was successful. The Turks in renewednumbers, however, advanced to the siege of Missolonghi; but they wereagain repulsed with great slaughter.

The naval campaign from which so much was expected by the Sultan alsoproved a failure. As usual the Greeks resorted to their fire-ships, notbeing able openly to contend with superior forces, and drove the fleetback again to the Dardanelles. When the sea was clear, they were able toreinforce Missolonghi with three thousand men and a large supply ofprovisions; for it was foreseen that the siege would be renewed.

It was at this time, when the Greek cause was imperilled by thedissensions of the leading chieftains; when Greece indeed was threatenedby civil war, in addition to its contest with the Turks; when the wholecountry was impoverished and devastated; when the population was meltingaway, and no revenue could be raised to pay the half-starved andhalf-naked troops,--that Lord Byron arrived at Missolonghi to share hisfortune with the defenders of an uncertain cause. Like most scholars andpoets, he had a sentimental attachment for the classic land,--theteacher of the ancient world; and in common with his countrymen headmired the noble struggles and sacrifices, worthy of ancient heroes,which the Greeks, though divided and demoralized, had put forth torecover their liberties. His money contributions were valuable; but itwas his moral support which accomplished the most for Grecianindependence. Though unpopular and maligned at this time in England forhis immoralities and haughty disdain, he was still the greatest poet ofhis age, a peer, and a man of transcendent genius of whom any countrywould be proud. That such a man, embittered and in broken health, shouldthrow his whole soul into the contest, with a disinterestedness whichwas never questioned, shows not only that he had many noble traits, butthat his example would have great weight with enlightened nations, andopen their eyes to the necessity of rallying to the cause of liberty.The faults of the Greeks were many; but these faults were such as wouldnaturally be produced by four hundred years of oppression and scorn, ofcraft, treachery, and insensibility to suffering. As for theirjealousies and quarrels, when was there ever a time, even in periods oftheir highest glory, when these were not their national characteristics?

Interest in the affairs of Greece now began to be awakened, especiallyamong the English; and the result was a loan of L800,000 raised inLondon for the Greek government, at the rate of L59 for L100. Greecereally obtained only L280,000, while it contracted a debt of L800,000.Yet this disadvantageous loan was of great service to an utterlyimpoverished government, about to contend with the large armies of theTurks. The Sultan had made immense preparations for the campaign of1824, and had obtained the assistance of the celebrated Ibrahim Pasha,adopted son of Mohammed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, who with his Egyptiantroops had nearly subdued Crete. Over one hundred thousand men were nowdirected, by sea and land, to western Greece and Missolonghi, of whichtwenty thousand were disciplined Egyptian troops. With this great forcethe Mussulmans assumed the offensive, and the condition of Greece wasnever more critical.

First, the islands of Spezzia and Ipsara were attacked,--the latterbeing little more than a barren rock, but the abode of liberty. It waspoorly defended, and was unable to cope with the Turkish armada, havingon board fifteen thousand disciplined troops. Canaris advised a combaton the sea, but was overruled; and the consequences were fatal. Theisland was taken and sacked, and all the inhabitants were put to thesword. In addition to this great calamity, the spoil made by the victorswas immense, including two hundred pieces of artillery and ninetyvessels. Canaris, however, contrived to escape in a boat, to pursue avictorious career with his fire-ships. The Turkish and Egyptian fleetshad effected a junction, consisting of one ship-of-the-line, twenty-fivefrigates, twenty-five corvettes, fifty brigs and schooners, and twohundred and forty transports, carrying eighty thousand soldiers andsailors and twenty-five hundred cannon. To oppose this great armament,the Greek admiral Miaulis had only seventy sail, manned by five thousandsailors and carrying eight hundred guns. In spite however of thisdisproportion of forces he advanced to meet the enemy, and dispersed itwith a great Turkish loss of fifteen thousand men. All that the Turkshad gained was a barren island.

On the land the Turks had more successes; but these were so indecisivethat they did not attempt to renew the siege of Missolonghi, and thecampaign of 1824 closed with a great loss to the Mussulmans. The littlearmy and fleet of the Greeks had repelled one hundred and twentythousand soldiers confident of success; but the population was nowreduced to less than five hundred thousand, becoming feebler every day,and the national treasury was empty, while the whole country was a sceneof desolation and misery. And yet, strange to say, the Greeks continuedtheir dissensions while on the very brink of ruin. Stranger still, theircourage was unabated.

The year 1825 opened with brighter prospects. The rival chieftains, inview of the desperate state of affairs, at last united, and seeminglyburied their jealousies. A new loan was contracted in London ofL2,000,000, and the naval forces were increased.

But the Turks also made their preparations for a renewed conflict, andIbrahim Pasha felt himself strong enough to undertake the siege ofNavarino, which fell into his hands after a brave resistance. Tripolitzaalso capitulated to the Egyptian, and the Morea was occupied by histroops after several engagements. After this the Greeks never venturedto fight in the open field, but only in guerilla bands, in mountainpasses, and behind fortifications.

Then began the memorable siege of Missolonghi under Reschid Pasha. Itwas probably the strongest town in Greece,--by reason not of itsfortifications but of the surrounding marshes and lagoons which made itinaccessible. Into this town the armed peasantry threw themselves, withfive thousand troops under Niketas, while Miaulis with his fleet raisedthe blockade by sea and supplied the town with provisions. Reschid Pashadetermined on an assault, but was driven back. Thrice he advanced withhis troops, only to be repulsed. His forces at the end of October werereduced to three thousand men. The Sultan, irritated by successivedisasters, brought the whole disposable force of his empire to bear onthe doomed city. Ibrahim, powerfully reinforced with twenty-fivethousand men, by sea and land stormed battery after battery; yet theGreeks held out, contending with famine and pestilence, as well as withtroops ten times their number.

At last they were unable to offer further resistance, and they resolvedon a general sortie to break through the enemy's line to a place ofsafety. The women of the town put on male attire, and armed themselveswith pistols and daggers. The whole population,--men, women, andchildren,--on the night of the 22d of April, 1826, issued from theirdefences, crossed the moat in silence, passed the ditches and trenches,and made their way through an opening of the besiegers' lines. For awhile the sortie seemed to be successful; but mistakes were made, apanic ensued, and most of the flying crowd retreated back to thedeserted town, only to be massacred by Turkish scimitars. Some madetheir escape. A column of nearly two thousand, after incrediblehardships, succeeded in reaching Salonica in safety; but Missolonghifell, with the loss of nearly ten thousand, killed, wounded, andprisoners.

It was a great disaster, but proved in the end the foundation of Greekindependence, by creating a general burst of blended enthusiasm andindignation throughout Europe. The heroic defence of this strongholdagainst such overwhelming forces opened the eyes of European statesmen.Public sentiment in England in favor of the struggling nation could nolonger be disregarded. Mr. Canning took up the cause, both fromenthusiasm and policy. The English ambassador at Constantinople had asecret interview with Mavrokordatos on an island near Hydra, andpromised him the intervention of England. The death of the CzarAlexander gave a new aspect to affairs; for his successor, Nicholas,made up his mind to raise his standard in Turkey. The national voice ofRussia was now for war. The Duke of Wellington was sent to St.Petersburg, nominally to congratulate the Czar on his accession, butreally to arrange for an armed intervention for the protection ofGreece. The Hellenic government ordered a general conscription; forIbrahim Pasha was organizing new forces for the subjection of the Moreaand the reduction of Napoli di Romania and Hydra, while a powerfulfleet put to sea from Alexandria. No sooner did this fleet appear,however, than Canaris and Miaulis attacked it with their dreadedfire-ships, and the forty ships of Egypt fled from fourteen small Greekvessels, and re-entered the Dardanelles. But the Turks, always morefortunate on land than by sea, pressed now the siege of the Acropolis,and Athens fell into their hands early in 1827.

For six or seven years the Greeks had struggled heroically; but reliefwas now at hand. Russia and England signed a protocol on the 6th ofJuly, and France soon after joined, to put an end to the sanguinarycontest. The terms proposed to the Sultan by the three great Powers weremoderate,--that he should still retain a nominal sovereignty over therevolted provinces and receive an annual tribute; but the haughty andexasperated Sultan indignantly rejected them, and made renewedpreparations to continue the contest. Ibrahim landed his forces on theMorea and renewed his depredations. Once more the ambassadors of theallied Powers presented their final note to the Turkish government, andagain it was insultingly disregarded. The allied admirals then enteredthe port of Navarino, where the Turkish and Egyptian fleets were atanchor, with ten ships-of-the-line, ten frigates, with other vessels,altogether carrying thirteen hundred and twenty-four guns. The Ottomanforce consisted of seventy-nine vessels, armed with twenty-two hundredand forty guns. Strict orders were given not to fire while negotiationswere going on; but an accidental shot from a Turkish vessel brought on ageneral action, and the combined Turkish and Egyptian fleet wasliterally annihilated Oct. 20, 1827. This was the greatest disasterwhich the Ottoman Turks had yet experienced; indeed, it practicallyended the whole contest. Christendom at last had come to the rescue,when Greece unaided was incapable of further resistance.

The battle of Navarino excited, of course, the wildest enthusiasmthroughout Greece, and a corresponding joy throughout Europe. Neversince the battle of Lepanto was there such a general exultation amongChristian nations. This single battle decided the fate of Greece. Theadmirals of the allied fleet were doubtless "the aggressors in thebattle; but the Turks were the aggressors in the war."

Canning of England did not live to enjoy the triumph of the cause whichhe had come to have so much at heart. He was the inspiring genius whoinduced both Russia and France (now under Charles X.) to intervene.Chateaubriand, the minister of Charles X., was in perfect accord withCanning from poetical and sentimental reasons. Politically his policywas that of Metternich, who could see no distinction between theinsurrection of Naples and that of Greece. In the great Austrian's eyes,all people alike who aspired to gain popular liberty or constitutionalgovernment were rebels to be crushed. Canning, however, sympathized inhis latter days with all people striving for independence, whether inSouth America or Greece. But his opinion was not shared by Englishstatesmen of the Tory school, and he had the greatest difficulty inbringing his colleagues over to his views. When he died, England againrelapsed into neutrality and inaction, under the government ofWellington. Charles X. in France had no natural liking for the Greekcause, and wanted only to be undisturbed in his schemes of despotism.Russia, under Nicholas, determined to fight Turkey, unfettered byallies. She sought but a pretext for a declaration of war. Turkeyfurnished to Russia that pretext, right in the stress of her ownmilitary weakness, when she was exhausted by a war of seven years, andby the destruction of the Janizaries,--which the Sultan had longmeditated, and concealed in his own bosom with the craft which formedone of the peculiarities of this cruel yet able sovereign, but which hefinally executed with characteristic savagery. Concerning this Russianwar we shall speak presently.

The battle of Navarino, although it made the restoration of the Turkishpower impossible in Greece, still left Ibrahim master of the fortresses,and it was two years before the Turkish troops were finally expelled.But independence was now assured, and the Greeks set about establishingtheir government with some permanency. Before the end of that year Capod'Istrias was elected president for seven years, and in January, 1828,he entered upon his office. His ideas of government were arbitrary, forhe had been the minister and favorite of Alexander. He wished to rulelike an absolute sovereign. His short reign was a sort of dictatorship.His council was composed entirely of his creatures, and he sought atonce to destroy provincial and municipal authority. He limited thefreedom of the Press and violated the secrecy of the mails. "In Plato'shome, Plato's Gorgias could not be read because it spoke too stronglyagainst tyrants."

Capo d'Istrias found it hard to organize and govern amid the hostilitiesof rival chieftains and the general anarchy which prevailed. Localself-government lay at the root of Greek nationality; but this heignored, and set himself to organize an administrative system modelledafter that of France during the reign of Napoleon. Intellectually hestood at the head of the nation, and was a man of great integrity ofcharacter, as austere and upright as Guizot, having no toleration forfreebooters and peculators. He became unpopular among the sailors andmerchants, who had been so effective in the warfare with the Turks. "Adark shadow fell over his government" as it became more harsh andintolerant, and he was assassinated the 9th of October, 1831.

The allied sovereigns who had taken the Greeks under their protectionnow felt the need of a stronger and more stable government for them thana republic, and determined to establish an hereditary but constitutionalmonarchy. The crown was offered to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who atfirst accepted it; but when that prince began to look into the realstate of the country,--curtailed in its limits by the jealousies of theEnglish government, rent with anarchy and dissension, containing apeople so long enslaved that they could not make orderly use offreedom,--he declined the proffered crown. It was then (1832) offered toand accepted by Prince Otho of Bavaria, a minor; and thirty-five hundredBavarian soldiers maintained order during the three years of theregency, which, though it developed great activity, was divided initself, and conspiracies took place to overthrow it. The year 1835 sawthe majority of the king, who then assumed the government. In the sameyear the capital was transferred to Athens, which was nothing but a heapof rubbish; but the city soon after had a university, and also becamean important port. In 1843, after a military revolution against theGerman elements of Otho's government, which had increased from year toyear, the Greeks obtained from the king a representative constitution,to which he took an oath in 1844.

But the limits of the kingdom were small, and neither Crete, Thessaly,Epirus, nor the Ionian Islands were included in it. In 1846 theseislands were ceded by Great Britain to Greece, which was alsostrengthened by the annexation of Thessaly. Since then the progress ofthe country in material wealth and in education has been rapid. Othoreigned till 1862, although amid occasional outbreaks of impatience andrevolt against the reactionary tendencies of his rule. In that year hefled with his queen from a formidable uprising; and in 1863 PrinceWilliam, son of Christian IX. King of Denmark, was elected monarch,under the title of George I. King of the Hellenes.

The resurrection of Greece was thus finally effected. It was added tothe European kingdoms, and now bids fair to be prosperous and happy."Thus did the Old Hellas rise from the grave of nations. Scorched byfire, riddled by shot, baptized by blood, she emerged victorious fromthe conflict. She achieved her independence because she proved herselfworthy of it; she was trained to manhood in the only school of realimprovement,--the school of suffering."

The Greek revolution has another aspect than battles on the Morea,massacres on the islands of the Archipelago, naval enterprises underheroic seamen, guerilla conflicts amid the defiles of mountains, bravedefences of fortresses, dissensions and jealousies between chieftains,treacheries and cruelties equalling those of the Turks,--another aspectthan the recovery of national independence even. It is memorable for thecomplications which grew out of it, especially for the war betweenTurkey and Russia, when the Emperor Nicholas, feeling that Turkey wasweakened and exhausted, sought to grasp the prize which he had longcoveted, even the possessions of the "sick man." Nicholas was theopposite of his brother Alexander, having neither his gentleness, hisimpulsiveness, his generosity, nor his indecision. He was a hard despotof the "blood-and-iron" stamp, ambitious for aggrandizement, indifferentto the sufferings of others, and withal a religious bigot. The Greekrebellion, as we have seen, gave him the occasion to pick a quarrel withthe Sultan. The Danubian principalities were dearer to him than remotepossessions on the Mediterranean.

So on the 7th of May, 1828, the Russians crossed the Pruth and invadedMoldavia and Wallachia,--provinces which had long belonged to Turkey byright of conquest, though governed by Greek hospodars. The Danube wascrossed on the 7th of June. The Turks were in no condition to contend inthe open field with seventy thousand Russians, and they retreated totheir fortresses,--to Ibraila and Silistria on the Danube, to Varna andShumla in the vicinity of the Balkans. The first few weeks of the warwere marked by Russian successes. Ibraila capitulated on the 18th ofJune, and the military posts on the Dobrudscha fell rapidly one afteranother. But it was at Shumla that the strongest part of the Turkisharmy was concentrated, under Omar Brionis, bent on defensive operations;and thither the Czar directed his main attack. Before this strongholdhis army wasted away by sickness in the malarial month of September. TheTurks were reinforced, and moved to the relief of Varna, also investedby Russian troops. But the season was now too far advanced for militaryoperations, and the Russians, after enormous losses, withdrew to theDanube to resume the offensive the following spring. The winter wasspent in bringing up reserves. The Czar finding that he had no aptitudeas a general withdrew to his capital, intrusting the direction of thefollowing campaign to Diebitsch, a Prussian general, famous for hissuccesses and his cruelties.

In the spring of 1829 the first movement was made to seize Silistria,toward which a great Turkish force was advancing, under Reschid Pasha,the grand vizier. His forces experienced a great defeat; and two weeksafter, in the latter part of June, Silistria surrendered. Resistance tothe Russians was now difficult. The passes of the Balkans were leftundefended, and the invading force easily penetrated them and advancedto Adrianople, which surrendered in a great panic. The Russians couldhave been defeated had not the Turks lost their senses, for the troopsunder Diebitsch were reduced to twenty thousand men. But this fact wasunknown to the Turks, who magnified the Russian forces to one hundredthousand at least. The result was the treaty of Adrianople, on the 14thof September,--apparently generous to the Turks, but really of greatadvantage to the Russians. Russia restored to Turkey all her conquestsin Europe and Asia, except a few commercial centres on the Black Sea,while the treaty gave to the Czar the protectorate over the Danubianprincipalities, the exclusion of Turks from fortified posts on the leftbank of the Danube, free passage through the Dardanelles to the merchantvessels of all nations at peace with the Sultan, and the free navigationof the Black Sea.

But Constantinople still remained the capital of Turkey. The "sick man"would not die. From jealousy of Russia the western Powers continued tonurse him. Without their aid he was not long to live; but his existencewas deemed necessary to maintain the "balance of power," and they cameto his assistance in the Crimean War, twenty-six years later, and gavehim a new lease of life.

This is the "Eastern Question,"--How long before the Turks will bedriven out of Europe, and who shall possess Constantinople? That is aquestion upon which it would be idle for me to offer speculations.Another aspect of the question is, How far shall Russia be permitted tomake conquests in the East? This is equally insoluble.

A new phase in the development of French revolutionary history tookplace on the accession of Louis Philippe to the throne. He became Kingof the French instead of King of France.

Louis XVIII., upon his coming to the throne at Napoleon's downfall,would not consent to reign except by divine right, on principles oflegitimacy, as the brother of Louis XVI. He felt that the throne was hisby all the laws of succession. He would not, therefore, accept it as thegift of the French nation, or of foreign Powers. He consented to befettered by a Constitution, as his brother had done; but that any powercould legally give to him what he deemed was already his own, was in hiseyes an absurdity.

This was not the case with Louis Philippe, for he was not the legitimateheir. He belonged to a younger branch of the Bourbons, and could not bethe legitimate king until all the male heirs of the elder branch wereextinct; and yet both branches of the royal family were the linealdescendants of Henry IV. This circumstance pointed him out as the properperson to ascend the throne on the expulsion of the elder branch; but hewas virtually an elective sovereign, chosen by the will of the nation.So he became king, not "by divine right," but by receiving the throne asthe gift of the people.

There were other reasons why Louis Philippe was raised to the throne. Hewas Duke of Orleans,--the richest man in France, son of that Egalitewho took part in the revolution, avowing all its principles; thereforehe was supposed to be liberal in his sentiments. The popular leaders whoexpelled Charles X., among the rest Lafayette,--that idol of the UnitedStates, that "Grandison Cromwell," as Carlyle called him,--viewed theDuke of Orleans as the most available person to preserve order and law,to gain the confidence of the country, and to preserve theConstitution,--which guaranteed personal liberty, the freedom of thePress, the inviolability of the judiciary, and the rights of electors tothe Chamber of Deputies, in which was vested the power of grantingsupplies to the executive government. Times were not ripe for arepublic, and only a few radicals wanted it. The nation desired asettled government, yet one ruling by the laws which the nation haddecreed through its representatives. Louis Philippe swore to everythingthat was demanded of him, and was in all respects a constitutionalmonarch, under whom the French expected all the rights and libertiesthat England enjoyed. All this was a step in advance of the monarchy ofLouis XVIII. Louis Philippe was rightly named "the citizen king."

This monarch was also a wise, popular, and talented man. He had passedthrough great vicissitudes of fortune. At one time he taught a school inSwitzerland. He was an exile and a wanderer from country to country. Hehad learned much from his misfortunes; he had had great experiences, andwas well read in the history of thrones and empires. He was affable inhis manners, and interesting in conversation; a polished gentleman, withconsiderable native ability,--the intellectual equal of the statesmenwho surrounded him. His morals were unstained, and his tastes weredomestic. His happiest hours were spent in the bosom of his family; andhis family was harmonious and respectable. He was the idol of the middleclass; bankers, merchants, lawyers, and wealthy shopkeepers were hisstrongest supporters. All classes acquiesced in the rule of a worthyman, as he seemed to all,--moderate, peace-loving, benignant,good-natured. They did not see that he was selfish, crafty,money-loving, bound up in family interests. This plain-looking,respectable, middle-aged man, as he walked under the colonnade of theRue de Rivoli, with an umbrella under his arm, looked more like a plaincitizen than a king. The leading journals were all won over to his side.The Chamber of Deputies by a large majority voted for him, and theeighty-three Departments, representing thirty-five millions of people,by a still larger majority elected him king. The two Chambers prepared aConstitution, which he unhesitatingly accepted and swore to maintain. Hewas not chosen by universal suffrage, but by one hundred and fiftythousand voters. The Republicans were not satisfied, but submitted; soalso did the ultra-Royalists. It was at first feared that the alliedPowers, under the influence of Metternich, would be unfriendly; yet oneafter another recognized the new government, feeling that it was thebest, under the circumstances, that could be established.

The man who had the most to do with the elevation of Louis Philippe wasthe Marquis de Lafayette, who as far back as the first revolution wasthe commander of the National Guards; and they, as the representativesof the middle classes, sustained the throne during this reign. Lafayettehad won a great reputation for his magnanimous and chivalrous assistanceto the United States, when, at twenty years of age, he escaped fromofficial hindrances at home and tendered his unpaid voluntary servicesto Washington. This was in the darkest period of the AmericanRevolution, when Washington had a pitifully small army, and when theAmerican treasury was empty. Lafayette was the friend and admirer ofWashington, whose whole confidence he possessed; and he not onlyperformed distinguished military duty, but within a year returned toFrance and secured a French fleet, land forces, clothing and ammunitionfor the struggling patriots, as the result of French recognition ofAmerican independence, and of a treaty of alliance with the new Americannation,--both largely due to his efforts and influence.

When Lafayette departed, on his return to France, he was laden withhonors and with the lasting gratitude of the American people. Hereturned burning with enthusiasm for liberty, and for Americaninstitutions; and this passion for liberty was never quenched, underwhatever form of government existed in France. He was from first to lastthe consistent friend of struggling patriots,--sincere, honest,incorruptible, with horror of revolutionary excesses, as sentimental asLamartine, yet as firm as Carnot.

Lafayette took an active part in the popular movements in 1787, and in1789 formed the National Guard and gave it the tricolor badge. But hewas too consistent and steady-minded for the times. He was not liked byextreme Royalists or by extreme Republicans. He was denounced by bothparties, and had to flee the country to save his life. Driven from Parisby the excesses of the Reign of Terror, which he abhorred, he fell intothe hands of the Prussians, who delivered him to the Austrians, and bythem he was immured in a dungeon at Olmutz for three and a half years,being finally released only by the influence of Napoleon. So rigorouswas his captivity that none of his family or friends knew for two yearswhere he was confined. On his return from Austria, he lived incomparative retirement at La Grange, his country-seat, and took no partin the government of Napoleon, whom he regarded as a traitor to thecause of liberty. Nor did he enter the service of the Bourbons, knowingtheir settled hostility to free institutions. History says but littleabout him during this time, except that from 1818 to 1824 he was amember of the Chamber of Deputies, and in 1825 to 1830 was againprominent in the legislative opposition to the royal government. In 1830again, as an old man, he reappeared as commander-in-chief of theNational Guards, when Charles X. was forced to abdicate. Lafayette nowbecame the most popular man in France, and from him largely emanated theinfluences which replaced Charles X. with Louis Philippe. He was not aman of great abilities, but was generally respected as an honest man.He was most marked for practical sagacity and love of constitutionalliberty. The phrase, "a monarchical government surrounded withrepublican institutions," is ascribed to him,--an illogical expression,which called out the sneers of Carlyle, whose sympathies were withstrong governments and with the men who can rule, and who therefore, ashe thought, ought to rule.

Lafayette was doubtless played with and used by Louis Philippe, the mostastute and crafty of monarchs. Professing the greatest love and esteemfor the general who had elevated him, the king was glad to get rid ofhim; so, too, were the Chambers,--the former from jealousy of hispopularity, and the latter from dislike of his independence andintegrity. Under Louis Philippe he held no higher position than as amember of the Chamber of Deputies. As deputy he had always been andcontinued to be fearless, patriotic, and sometimes eloquent. Hisspeeches were clear, unimpassioned, sensible, and he was always listenedto with respect. He took great interest in the wrongs of all oppressedpeople; and exiles from Poland, from Spain, and from Italy found in hima generous protector. His house was famous for its unpretendinghospitalities, especially to American travellers. He lived long enoughto see the complete triumph of American institutions. In 1824, upon aformal invitation by Congress, he revisited the United States as theguest of the nation, and received unprecedented ovations wherever hewent,--a tribute of the heart, such as only great benefactors enjoy,when envy gives place to gratitude and admiration. A great man he wasnot, in the ordinary sense of greatness; yet few men will live as longas he in the national hearts of two nations, for character if not forgenius, for services if not for brilliant achievements.

The first business of the new monarch in 1830 was to choose hisministers, and he selected as premier Lafitte the banker, a prominentmember of the Chamber of Deputies, who had had great influence incalling him to the throne. Lafitte belonged to the liberal party, andwas next to Lafayette the most popular man in France, but superior tothat statesman in intellect and executive ability. He lived in grandstyle, and his palace, with its courts and gardens, was the resort ofthe most distinguished men in France,--the Duke of Choiseul, Dupin,Beranger, Casimir Perier, Montalivet, the two Aragos, Guizot, OdillonBarrot, Villemain,--politicians, artists, and men of letters. Hisministry, however, lasted less than a year. The vast increase in thepublic expenditure aroused a storm of popular indignation. The increaseof taxation is always resented by the middle classes, and by thismeasure Lafitte lost his popularity. Moreover, the public disorderslessened the authority of the government. In March, 1831, the king foundit expedient to dismiss Lafitte, and to appoint Casimir Perier, an ablerman, to succeed him. Lafitte was not great enough for the exigencies ofthe times. His business was to make money, and it was his pleasure tospend it; but he was unable to repress the discontents of Paris, or tocontrol the French revolutionary ideas, which were spreading over thewhole Continent, especially in Belgium, in which a revolution tookplace, accompanied by a separation from Holland. Belgium was erectedinto an independent kingdom, under a constitutional government. PrinceLeopold, of Saxe Coburg, having refused the crown of Greece, was electedking, and shortly after married a daughter of Louis Philippe; whichmarriage, of course, led to a close union between France and Belgium. Inthis marriage the dynastic ambition of Louis Philippe, which was one ofthe main causes of his subsequent downfall in 1848, became obvious. Buthe had craft enough to hide his ambition under the guise of zeal forconstitutional liberty.

Casimir Perier was a man of great energy, and liberal in his politicalantecedents, a banker of immense wealth and great force of character,reproachless in his integrity. He had scarcely assumed office when hewas called upon to enforce a very rigorous policy. France was in adistracted state, not so much from political agitation as from thediscontent engendered by poverty, and by the difficulty of finding workfor operatives,--a state not unlike that of England before the passageof the Reform Bill. According to Louis Blanc the public distress wasappalling, united with disgusting immorality among the laboring classesin country districts and in great manufacturing centres. In consequencethere were alarming riots at Lyons and other cities. The people wereliterally starving, and it required great resolution and firmness on thepart of government to quiet the disorders. Lyons was in the hands of amob, and Marshal Soult was promptly sent with forty thousand regulartroops to restore order. And this public distress,--when laborers earnedless than a shilling a day, and when the unemployed exceeded in numberthose who found work on a wretched pittance,--was at its height when theChamber of Deputies decreed a civil list for the king to the amount ofnearly nineteen millions of francs, thirty-seven times greater than thatgiven to Napoleon as First Consul; and this, too, when the king'sprivate income was six millions of francs a year.

Such was the disordered state of the country that the prime minister,whose general policy was that of peace, sent a military expedition toAncona, in the Papal territories, merely to divert the public mind fromthe disorders which reigned throughout the land. Indeed, the earlieryears of the reign of Louis Philippe were so beset with difficultiesthat it required extraordinary tact, prudence, and energy to govern atall. But the king was equal to the emergency. He showed courage and goodsense, and preserved his throne. At the same time, while he suppresseddisorders by vigorous measures, he took care to strengthen his power. Hewas in harmony with the Chamber of Deputies, composed almost entirely ofrich men. The liberal party demanded an extension of the suffrage, towhich he gracefully yielded; and the number of electors was raised toone hundred and eighty thousand, but extended only to those who paid adirect tax of two hundred francs. A bill was also passed in the Chamberof Deputies abolishing hereditary peerage, though opposed by Guizot,Thiers, and Berryer. Of course the opposition in the upper house wasgreat, and thirty-six new peers were created to carry the measure.

The year 1832 was marked by the ravages of the cholera, which swept awaytwenty thousand people in Paris alone, and among them Casimir Perier,and Cuvier the pride of the scientific world.

But Louis Philippe was not yet firmly established on his throne. Hisministers had suppressed disorders, seized two hundred journals,abolished hereditary peerage, extended the electoral suffrage, while hehad married his daughter to the King of Belgium. He now began toconsolidate his power by increasing the army, seeking alliances with thedifferent powers of Europe, bribing the Press, and enriching hissubordinates. Taxation was necessarily increased; yet renewed prosperityfrom the increase of industries removed discontents, which arise notfrom the excess of burdens, but from a sense of injustice. Now began themillennium of shopkeepers and bankers, all of whom supported the throne.The Chamber of Deputies granted the government all the money it wanted,which was lavishly spent in every form of corruption, and luxury againset in. Never were the shops more brilliant, or equipages more gorgeous.The king on his accession had removed from the palace which CardinalMazarin had bequeathed to Louis XIV., and took up his residence at theTuileries; and though his own manners were plain, he surrounded himselfwith all the pomp of royalty, but not with the old courtiers of CharlesX. Marshal Soult greatly distinguished himself in suppressing disorders,especially a second riot in Lyons. To add to the public disorders, theDuchess of Berri made a hostile descent on France with the vain hope ofrestoring the elder branch of the Bourbons. This unsuccessful movementwas easily put down, and the discredited princess was arrested andimprisoned. Meanwhile the popular discontents continued, and a freshinsurrection broke out in Paris, headed by Republican chieftains. TheRepublicans were disappointed, and disliked the vigor of the government,which gave indications of a sterner rule than that of Charles X.Moreover, the laboring classes found themselves unemployed. Thegovernment of Louis Philippe was not for them, but for the bourgeoisparty, shop-keepers, bankers, and merchants. The funeral of GeneralLamarque, a popular favorite, was made the occasion of freshdisturbances, which at one time were quite serious. The old cry of _Vivela Republique_ began to be heard from thousands of voices in the scenesof former insurrections. Revolt assumed form. A mysterious meeting washeld at Lafitte's, when the dethronement of the king was discussed. Themob was already in possession of one of the principal quarters of thecity. The authorities were greatly alarmed, but they had taken vigorousmeasures. There were eighteen thousand regular troops under arms witheighty pieces of cannon, and thirty thousand more in the environs,besides the National Guards. What could the students of the PolytechnicSchool and an undisciplined mob do against these armed troops? In vaintheir cries of _Vive la Liberte; a bas Louis Philippe!_ The militaryschool was closed, and the leading journals of the Republican party wereseized. Marshal Soult found himself on the 7th of June, 1832, at thehead of sixty thousand regular troops and twenty thousand NationalGuards. The insurgents, who had erected barricades, were driven backafter a fierce fight at the Cloister of St. Meri. This bloody triumphclosed the insurrection. The throne of the citizen king was saved by thecourage and discipline of the regular troops under a consummate general.The throne of Charles X. could not have stood a day in face of such aninsurrection.

The next day after the defeat of the insurgents Paris was proclaimed ina state of siege, in spite of the remonstrances of all parties againstit as an unnecessary act; but the king was firm and indignant, andordered the arrest of both Democrats and Legitimists, includingGarnier-Pages and Chateaubriand himself. He made war on the Press.During his reign of two years two hundred and eighty-one journals wereseized, and fines imposed to nearly the amount of four hundredthousand francs.

The suppression of revolts in both Paris and Lyons did much tostrengthen the government, and the result was an increase of publicprosperity. Capital reappeared from its hiding-places, and industryrenewed its labors. The public funds rose six per cent. The first dawnof the welfare of the laboring classes rose on their defeat.

For his great services in establishing a firm government Marshal Soultwas made prime minister, with De Broglie, Guizot, and Thiers among hisassociates. The chief event which marked his administration was a warwith Holland, followed by the celebrated siege of Antwerp, which theHollanders occupied with a large body of troops. England joined withFrance in this contest, which threatened to bring on a general Europeanwar; but the successful capture of the citadel of Antwerp, after agallant defence, prevented that catastrophe. This successful siegevastly increased the military prestige of France, and brought Belgiumcompletely under French influence.

The remaining events which marked the ministry of Marshal Soult were theproject of fortifying Paris by a series of detached forts of greatstrength, entirely surrounding the city, the liberal expenditure ofmoney for public improvements, and the maintenance of the colony ofAlgeria. The first measure was postponed on account of the violentopposition of the Republicans, and the second was carried out withpopular favor through the influence of Thiers. The Arc de l'Etoile wasfinished at an expense of two million francs; the Church of theMadeleine, at a cost of nearly three millions; the Pantheon, of1,400,000; the Museum of Natural History, for which 2,400,000 francswere appropriated; the Church of St. Denis, 1,350,000; the Ecole desBeaux Arts, 1,900,000; the Hotel du Quay d'Orsay, 3,450,000; besidesother improvements, the chief of which was in canals, for whichforty-four millions of francs were appropriated,--altogether nearly onehundred millions of francs, which of course furnished employment fordiscontented laborers. The retention of the Colony of Algeria resultedin improving the military strength of France, especially by theinstitution of the corps of Zouaves, which afterward furnished effectivesoldiers. It was in Africa that the ablest generals of Louis Napoleonwere trained for the Crimean War.

In 1834 Marshal Soult retired from the ministry, and a series of primeministers rapidly succeeded one another, some of whom were able and ofhigh character, but no one of whom made any great historical mark, untilThiers took the helm of government in 1836,--not like a modern Englishprime minister, who is supreme so long as he is supported by Parliament,but rather as the servant of the king, like the ministers of George III.

Thiers was forty years of age when he became prime minister, althoughfor years he had been a conspicuous and influential member of theChamber of Deputies. Like Guizot he sprang from the people, his fatherbeing an obscure locksmith in Marseilles. Like Guizot, he first becamedistinguished as a writer for the "Constitutional," and afterward asits editor. He was a brilliant and fluent speaker, at home on allquestions of the day, always equal to the occasion, yet without strikingoriginality or profundity of views. Like most men who have been thearchitects of their own fortunes, he was vain and consequential. He wasliberal in his views, a friend of order and law, with aristocratictendencies. He was more warlike in his policy than suited either theking or his rival Guizot, who had entered the cabinet with him on thedeath of Casimir Perier. Nor was he a favorite with Louis Philippe, whowas always afraid that he would embroil the kingdom in war. Thiers'political opinions were very much like those of Canning in later days.His genius was versatile,--he wrote history in the midst of hisoratorical triumphs. His History of the French Revolution was by far theablest and most trustworthy that had yet appeared. The same may be saidof his History of the Consulate and of the Empire. He was a greatadmirer of Napoleon, and did more than any other to perpetuate theEmperor's fame. His labors were prodigious; he rose at four in themorning, and wrote thirty or forty letters before breakfast. He wasequally remarkable as an administrator and as a statesman, examining allthe details of government, and leaving nothing to chance. No man inFrance knew the condition of the country so well as Thiers, from both acivil and a military point of view. He was overbearing in the Chamber ofDeputies, and hence was not popular with the members. He was primeminister several times, but rarely for more than a few months at a time.The king always got rid of him as soon as he could, and much preferredGuizot, the high-priest of the Doctrinaires, whose policy was like thatof Lord Aberdeen in England,--peace at any price.

Nothing memorable happened during this short administration of Thiersexcept the agitation produced by secret societies in Switzerland,composed of refugees from all nations, who kept Europe in constantalarm. There were the "Young Italy" Society, and the societies of "YoungPoland," "Young Germany," "Young France," and "Young Switzerland." Thecabinets of Europe took alarm, and Thiers brought matters to a crisis bycausing the French minister at Berne to intimate to the Swiss governmentthat unless these societies were suppressed all diplomatic intercoursewould cease between France and Switzerland,--which meant an armedintervention. This question of the expulsion of political refugees drewMetternich and Thiers into close connection. But a still more importantquestion, as to intervention in Spanish matters, brought about adifference between the king and his minister, in consequence of whichthe latter resigned.

Count Mole now took the premiership, retaining it for two years. He wasa grave, laborious, and thoughtful man, but without the genius,eloquence, and versatility of Thiers. Mole belonged to an ancient andnoble family, and his splendid chateau was filled with historicalmonuments. He had all the affability of manners which marked the man ofhigh birth, without their frivolity. One of the first acts of hisadministration was the liberation of political prisoners, among whom wasthe famous Prince Polignac, the prime minister of Charles X. The oldking himself died, about the same time, an exile in a foreign land. Theyear 1836 was also signalized by the foolish and unsuccessful attempt ofLouis Napoleon, at Strasburg, to overthrow the government; but he washumanely and leniently dealt with, suffering no greater punishment thanbanishment to the United States for ten years. In the following yearoccurred the marriage of the Duke of Orleans, heir to the throne, with aGerman princess of the Lutheran faith, followed by magnificentfestivities. Soon after took place the inauguration of the palace ofVersailles as a museum of fine arts, which, as such, has remained tothis day; nor did Louis Napoleon in the height of his power venture touse this ancient and magnificent residence of the kings of France forany other purpose.

But the most important event in the administration of Count Mole wasthe extension of the Algerian colony to the limits of the ancientLibya,--so long the granary of imperial Rome, and which once could boastof twenty millions of people. This occupation of African territory ledto the war in which the celebrated Arab chieftain, Abd-el-Kader, was thehero. He was both priest and warrior, enjoying the unlimited confidenceof his countrymen; and by his cunning and knowledge of the country hesucceeded in maintaining himself for several years against the Frenchgenerals. His stronghold was Constantine, which was taken by storm inOctober, 1837, by General Vallee. Still, the Arab chieftain found meansto defy his enemies; and it was not till 1841 that he was forced to fleeand seek protection from the Emperor of Morocco. The storming ofConstantine was a notable military exploit, and gave great prestige tothe government.

Louis Philippe was now firmly established on his throne, yet he hadnarrowly escaped assassination four or five times. This taught him to becautious, and to realize the fact that no monarch can be safe amid theplots of fanatics. He no longer walked the streets of Paris with anumbrella under his arm, but enshrouded himself in the Tuileries with theusual guards of Continental kings. His favorite residence was at St.Cloud, at that time one of the most beautiful of the royal palacesof Europe.

At this time the railway mania raged in France, as it did in England.Foremost among those who undertook to manage the great corporationswhich had established district railways, was Arago the astronomer, who,although a zealous Republican, was ever listened to with respect in theChamber of Deputies. These railways indicated great material prosperityin the nation at large, and the golden age of speculators andcapitalists set in,--all averse to war, all worshippers of money, allfor peace at any price. Morning, noon, and night the offices of bankersand stock-jobbers were besieged by files of carriages and clamorouscrowds, even by ladies of rank, to purchase shares in companies whichwere to make everybody's fortune, and which at one time had risenfifteen hundred per cent, giving opportunities for boundless frauds.Military glory for a time ceased to be a passion among the mostexcitable and warlike people of Europe, and gave way to the moreabsorbing passion for gain, and for the pleasures which money purchases.Nor was it difficult, in this universal pursuit of sudden wealth, togovern a nation whose rulers had the appointment of one hundred andforty thousand civil officers and an army of four hundred thousand men.Bribery and corruption kept pace with material prosperity. Never beforehad officials been so generally and easily bribed. Indeed, thegovernment was built up on this miserable foundation. With bribery,corruption, and sudden wealth, the most shameful immorality existedeverywhere. Out of every one thousand births, one third wereillegitimate. The theatres were disgraced by the most indecent plays.Money and pleasure had become the gods of France, and Paris more thanever before was the centre of luxury and social vice.

It was at this period of peace and tranquillity that Talleyrand died, onthe 17th of May, 1838, at eighty-two, after serving in his advanced ageLouis Philippe as ambassador at London. The Abbe Dupanloup, afterwardbishop of Orleans, administered the last services of his church to thedying statesman. Talleyrand had, however, outlived his reputation, whichwas at its height when he went to the Congress of Vienna in 1814. Thoughhe rendered great services to the different sovereigns whom he served,he was too selfish and immoral to obtain a place in the hearts of thenation. A man who had sworn fidelity to thirteen constitutions andbetrayed them all, could not be much mourned or regretted at his death.His fame was built on witty sayings, elegant manners, and adroitadaptation to changing circumstances, rather than on those solid meritswinch alone extort the respect of posterity.

The ministry of Count Mole was not eventful. It was marked chiefly forthe dissensions of political parties, troubles in Belgium, andthreatened insurrections, which alarmed the bourgeoisie. The king,feeling the necessity for a still stronger government, recalled oldMarshal Soult to the head of affairs. Neither Thiers nor Guizot formedpart of Soult's cabinet, on account of their mutual jealousies andundisguised ambition,--both aspiring to lead, and unwilling to acceptany office short of the premiership.

Another great man now came into public notice. This was Villemain, whowas made Minister of Public Instruction, a post which Guizot hadpreviously filled. Villemain was a peer of France, an aristocrat fromhis connections with high society, but a liberal from his love ofpopularity. He was one of the greatest writers of this period, both inhistory and philosophy, and an advocate of Polish independence. Thiersat this time was the recognized leader of the Left and Left Centre inthe Deputies, while his rival, Guizot, was the leader of theConservatives. Eastern affairs now assumed great prominence in theChamber of Deputies. Turkey was reduced to the last straits inconsequence of the victories of Ibrahim Pasha in Asia Minor; France andEngland adhered to the policy of non-intervention, and the Sultan in hisdespair was obliged to invoke the aid of his most dangerous ally,Russia, who extorted as the price of his assistance the famous treaty ofUnkiar-Skelessi, which excluded all ships-of-war, except those ofRussia and Turkey, from the Black Sea, the effect of which was to makeit a Muscovite lake. England and France did not fully perceive theirmistake in thus throwing Turkey into the arms of Russia, by theireagerness to maintain the _status quo_,--the policy of Austria. Therewere, however, a few statesmen in the French Chamber of Deputies whodeplored the inaction of government. Among these was Lamartine, who madea brilliant and powerful speech against an inglorious peace. This oratorwas now in the height of his fame, and but for his excessive vanity andsentimentalism might have reached the foremost rank in the nationalcouncils. He was distinguished not only for eloquence, but for hishistorical compositions, which are brilliant and suggestive, but ratherprolix and discursive.

Sir Archibald Alison seems to think that Lamartine cannot be numberedamong the great historians, since, like the classic historians of Greeceand Rome, he has not given authorities for his statements, and, unlikeGerman writers, disdains foot-notes as pedantic. But I observe that inhis "History of Europe" Alison quotes Lamartine oftener than any otherFrench writer, and evidently admires his genius, and throws no doubt onthe general fidelity of his works. A partisan historian full ofprejudices, like Macaulay, with all his prodigality of references, isapt to be in reality more untruthful than a dispassionate writer withoutany show of learning at all. The learning of an advocate may hide andobscure truth as well as illustrate it. It is doubtless the custom ofhistorical writers generally to enrich, or burden, their works with allthe references they can find, to the delight of critics who glory indulness; but this, after all, may be a mere scholastic fashion.Lamartine probably preferred to embody his learning in the text thandisplay it in foot-notes. Moreover, he did not write for critics, butfor the people; not for the few, but for the many. As a popular writerhis histories, like those of Voltaire, had an enormous sale. If he wereless rhetorical and discursive, his books, perhaps, would have moremerit. He fatigues by the redundancy of his richness and the length ofhis sentences; and yet he is as candid and judicial as Hallam, and wouldhave had the credit of being so, had he only taken more pains to provehis points by stating his authorities.

Next to the insolvable difficulties which attended the discussion of theEastern question,--whether Turkey should be suffered to crumble awaywithout the assistance of the Western Powers; whether Russia should bedriven back from the Black Sea or not,--the affairs of Africa excitedgreat interest in the Chambers. Algiers had been taken by French armiesunder the Bourbons, and a colony had been founded in countries of greatnatural fertility. It was now a question how far the French armiesshould pursue their conquests in Africa, involving an immenseexpenditure of men and money, in order to found a great colonial empire,and gain military _eclat_, so necessary in France to give strength toany government. But a new insurrection and confederation of the defeatedArab tribes, marked by all the fanaticism of Moslem warriors, made itnecessary for the French to follow up their successes with all the vigorpossible. In consequence, an army of forty thousand infantry and twelvethousand cavalry and artillery drove the Arabs, in 1840, to theirremotest fastnesses. The ablest advocate for war measures was Thiers;and so formidable were his eloquence and influence in the Chambers, thathe was again called to the head of affairs, and his secondadministration took place.

The rivalry and jealousy between this great statesman and Guizot wouldnot permit the latter to take a subordinate position, but he wasmollified by the appointment of ambassador to London. The prime ministerhad a great majority to back him, and such was his ascendency that hehad all things his own way for a time, in spite of the king, whoseposition was wittily set forth in a famous expression of Thiers, _Le Roiregne, et ne gouverne pas_. Still, in spite of the liberal andprogressive views of Thiers, very little was done toward theamelioration of the sufferings of the people, for whom, personally, hecared but little. True, a bill was introduced into the Chambers whichreduced the hours of labor in the manufactories from twelve to eighthours, and from sixteen hours to twelve, while it forbade the employmentof children under eight years of age in the mills; but this beneficentmeasure, though carried in the Chamber of Peers, was defeated in thelower house, made up of capitalists and parsimonious money-worshippers.

What excited the most interest in the short administration of Thiers,was the removal of the bones of Napoleon from St. Helena to the banks ofthe Seine, which he loved so well, and their deposition under the domeof the Invalides,--the proudest monument of Louis Quatorze. LouisPhilippe sent his son the Prince de Joinville to superintend thisremoval,--an act of magnanimity hard to be reconciled with his usualastuteness and selfishness. He probably thought that his throne was sofirmly established that he could afford to please the enemies of hishouse, and perhaps would gain popularity. But such a measure doubtlesskept alive the memory of the deeds of the great conqueror, and renewedsentiments in the nation which in less than ten years afterwardfacilitated the usurpation of his nephew. In fact, the bones ofNapoleon were scarcely removed to their present resting-place beforeLouis Napoleon embarked upon his rash expedition at Boulogne, was takenprisoner, and immured in the fortress of Ham, where he spent six yearsin strict seclusion, conversing only with books, until he contrived toescape to England.

The Eastern question again, under Thiers' administration, became thegreat topic of conversation and public interest, and his military policycame near embroiling France in war. So great was the public alarm thatthe army was raised to four hundred thousand men, and measures weretaken to adopt a great system of fortifications around Paris. It wasfar, however, from the wishes and policy of the king to be dragged intowar by an ambitious and restless minister. He accordingly summonedGuizot from London to meet him privately at the Chateau d'Eu, inNormandy, where the statesman fully expounded his conservative andpacific policy. The result of this interview was the withdrawal of theFrench forces in the Levant and the dismissal of Thiers, who had broughtthe nation to the edge of war. His place was taken by Guizot, whohenceforth, with brief intervals, was the ruling spirit in the councilsof the king.

Guizot, on the whole, was the greatest name connected with the reign ofLouis Philippe, although his elevation to the premiership was longdelayed. In solid learning, political ability, and parliamentaryeloquence he had no equal, unless it were Thiers. He was a native ofSwitzerland, and a Protestant; but all his tendencies were conservative.He was cold and austere in manners and character. He had acquireddistinction in the two preceding reigns, both as a political writer forthe journals and as a historian. The extreme Left and the extreme Rightcalled him a "Doctrinaire," and he was never popular with either ofthese parties. He greatly admired the English constitution and attemptedto steer a middle course, being the advocate of constitutional monarchysurrounded with liberal institutions. Amid the fierce conflict ofparties which marked the reign of Louis Philippe, Guizot graduallybecame more and more conservative, verging on absolutism. Hence he brokewith Lafayette, who was always ready to upset the throne when itencroached on the liberties of the people. His policy was pacific, whileThiers was always involving the nation in military schemes. In thelatter part of the reign of Louis Philippe, Guizot's views were notdissimilar to those of the English Tories. His studies led him to detestwar as much as did Lord Aberdeen, and he was the invariable advocate ofpeace. He was, like Thiers, an aristocrat at heart, although sprung fromthe middle classes. He was simple in his habits and style of life, andwas greater as a philosopher than as a practical statesman amid populardiscontents.

Guizot was the father of what is called philosophical history, and allhis historical writings show great research, accuracy, and breadth ofviews. His temperament made him calm and unimpassioned, and hisknowledge made him profound. He was a great historical authority, likeRanke, but was more admired fifty years ago than he is at the presentday, when dramatic writings like those of Motley and Froude have spoiledordinary readers for profundity allied with dulness. He resembles Hallammore than Macaulay. But it is life rather than learning which givesimmortality to historians. It is the life and the individuality ofGibbon which preserve his fame and popularity rather than his marvellouslearning. Voltaire lives for his style alone, the greatest of modernhistorical artists. Better it is for the fame of a writer to have athousand faults with the single excellence of living power, than to haveno faults and no remarkable excellences. Guizot is deficient in life,but is wonderful for research and philosophical deductions, and hence isto be read by students rather than by the people. As a popular historianhe is inferior to Thiers, but superior to him in general learning.

Guizot became the favorite minister of Louis Philippe for hisconservative policy and his love of peace rather than for his personalattractions. He was less independent than Thiers, and equally ambitiousof ruling, and was also more subservient to the king, supporting him inmeasures which finally undermined his throne; but the purity of Guizot'sprivate life, in an age of corruption, secured for him more respect thanpopularity, Mr. Fyffe in his late scholarly history sneers at him as asanctimonious old Puritan,--almost a hypocrite.

Guizot died before Thiers had won his greatest fame as the restorer oflaw and order after the communistic riots which followed the siege ofParis in 1871, when, as President of the Republic, he renderedinestimable services to France. The great personal defect of Thiers wasvanity; that of Guizot was austerity: but both were men of transcendentability and unimpeached patriotism. With these two men began the mightypower of the French Press in the formation of public opinion. With themthe reign of Louis Philippe was identified as much as that of QueenVictoria for twenty years has been with Gladstone and Disraeli. Betweenthem the king "reigned" rather than "governed." This was the period whenstatesmen began to monopolize the power of kings in Prussia and Austriaas well as in France and England. Russia alone of the great Powers wasruled by the will of a royal autocrat. In constitutional monarchiesministers enjoy the powers which were once given to the favorites ofroyalty; they rise and fall with majorities in legislative assemblies.In such a country as America the President is king, but only for alimited period. He descends from a position of transcendent dignity tothe obscurity of private life. His ministers are his secretaries,without influence, comparatively, in the halls of Congress,--neithermade nor unmade by the legislature, although dependent on the Senate forconfirmation, but once appointed, independent of both houses, andresponsible only to the irremovable Executive, who can defy even publicopinion, unless he aims at re-election, a unique government in thepolitical history of the world.

The year 1841 opened auspiciously for Louis Philippe. He was at thesummit of his power, and his throne seemed to be solidly cemented. Allthe insurrections which had given him so much trouble were suppressed,and the country was unusually prosperous. The enormous sum ofL85,000,000 had been expended in six years on railways, one quarter morethan England had spent. Population had increased over a million in tenyears, and the exports were L7,000,000 more than they were in 1830.Paris was a city of shops and attractive boulevards.

The fortification of the capital continued to be an engrossing matterwith the ministry and legislature, and it was a question whether thereshould be built a wall around the city, or a series of strong detachedforts. The latter found the most favor with military men, but the Pressdenounced it as nothing less than a series of Bastiles to overawe thecity. The result was the adoption of both systems,--detached forts, eachcapable of sustaining a siege and preventing an enemy from effectuallybombarding the city; and the _enceinte continuee_, which proved anexpensive _muraille d'octroi_. Had it not been for the detached forts,with their two thousand pieces of cannon, Paris would have been unableto sustain a siege in the Franco-Prussian war. The city must havesurrendered immediately when once invested, or have been destroyed; butthe distant forts prevented the Prussians from advancing near enough tobombard the centre of the city.

The war in Algeria was also continued with great vigor by the governmentof Guizot. It required sixty thousand troops to carry on the war, bringthe Arabs to terms, and capture their cunning and heroic chieftainAbd-el-Kader, which was done at last, after a vast expenditure of moneyand men. Among the commanders who conducted this African war wereMarshals Valee, Changarnier, Cavaignac, Canrobert, Bugeaud, St. Arnaud,and Generals Lamoriciere, Bosquet, Pelissier. Of these Changarnier wasthe most distinguished, although, from political reasons, he took nopart in the Crimean War. The result of the long contest, in which weredeveloped the talents of the generals who afterward gained underNapoleon III. so much distinction, was the possession of a countrytwelve hundred miles in length and three hundred in breadth, many partsof which are exceedingly fertile, and capable of sustaining a largepopulation. As a colony, however, Algeria has not been a profitableinvestment. It took eighteen years to subdue it, at a cost of onebillion francs, and the annual expense of maintaining it exceeds onehundred million francs. The condition of colonists there has generallybeen miserable; and while the imports in 1845 were one hundred millionfrancs, the exports were only about ten millions. The great importanceof the colony is as a school for war; it has no great material orpolitical value. The English never had over fifty thousand Europeantroops, aside from the native auxiliary army, to hold India insubjection, with a population of nearly three hundred millions, whereasit takes nearly one hundred thousand men to hold possession of a countryof less than two million natives. This fact, however, suggests theimmeasurable superiority of the Arabs over the inhabitants of India froma military point of view.

The accidental death, in 1842, of the Due d'Orleans, heir to thethrone, was attended with important political consequences. He was afavorite of the nation, and was both gifted and virtuous. His death lefta frail infant, the Comte de Paris, as heir to the throne, and led togreat disputes in the Chambers as to whom the regency should beintrusted in case of the death of the king. Indeed, this sad calamity,as it was felt by the nation, did much to shake the throne ofLouis Philippe.

The most important event during the ministry of Guizot, in view of itsconsequences on the fortunes of Louis Philippe, was the Spanishmarriages. The Salic law prohibited the succession of females to thethrone of France, but the old laws of Spain permitted females as well asmales to reign. In consequence, it was always a matter of dynasticambition for the monarchs of Europe to marry their sons to those Spanishprincesses who possibly might become sovereign of Spain. But as suchmarriages might result in the consolidation of powerful States, and thusdisturb the balance of power, they were generally opposed by othercountries, especially England. Indeed, the long and bloody war calledthe War of Spanish Succession, in which Marlborough and Eugene were theheroes, was waged with Louis XIV. to prevent the union of France andSpain, as seemed probable when the bequest of the Spanish throne wasmade to the Duc d'Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV., who had married aSpanish princess. The victories of Marlborough and Eugene prevented thisunion of the two most powerful monarchies of Europe at that time, andthe treaty of Utrecht permanently guarded against it. The title of theDuc d'Anjou to the Spanish throne was recognized, but only on thecondition that he renounced for himself and his descendants all claim tothe French crown,--while the French monarch renounced on his part forhis descendants all claim to the Spanish throne, which was to descend,against ancient usages, to the male heirs alone. The Spanish Cortes andthe Parliament of Paris ratified this treaty, and it became incorporatedwith the public law of Europe.

Up to this time the relations between England and France had been mostfriendly. Louis Philippe had visited Queen Victoria at Windsor, and theQueen of England had returned the visit to the French king with greatpomp at his chateau d'Eu, in Normandy, where magnificent fetes followed.Guizot and Lord Aberdeen, the English foreign minister, were also inaccord, both statesmen adopting a peace policy. This _entente cordiale_between England and France had greatly strengthened the throne of LouisPhilippe, who thus had the moral support of England.

But this moral support was withdrawn when the king, in 1846, yielding toambition and dynastic interests, violated in substance the treaty ofUtrecht by marrying his son, the Duc de Montpensier, to the Infanta,daughter of Christina the Queen of Spain, and second wife of FerdinandVII., the last of the Bourbon kings of Spain. Ferdinand left twodaughters by Queen Christina, but no son. By the Salic law his youngerbrother Don Carlos was the legitimate heir to the throne; but hisambitious wife, who controlled him, influenced him to alter the law ofsuccession, by which his eldest daughter became the heir. This bred acivil war; but as Don Carlos was a bigot and tyrant, like all hisfamily, the liberal party in France and England brought all theirinfluence to secure the acknowledgment of the claims of Isabella, nowqueen, under the regency of her mother Christina. But her youngersister, the Infanta, was also a great matrimonial prize, since on thefailure of issue in case the young queen married, the Infanta would bethe heir to the crown. By the intrigues of Louis Philippe, aided by hisastute, able, but subservient minister Guizot, it was contrived to marrythe young queen to the Duke of Cadiz, one of the degenerate descendantsof Philip V., since no issue from the marriage was expected, in whichcase the heir of the Infanta Donna Fernanda, married to the Duc deMontpensier, would some day ascend the throne of Spain. The Englishgovernment, especially Lord Palmerston, who had succeeded Lord Aberdeenas foreign secretary, was exceedingly indignant at this royal trick; forLouis Philippe had distinctly promised Queen Victoria, when heentertained her at his royal chateau in Normandy, that this marriage ofthe Duc de Montpensier should not take place until Queen Isabella wasmarried and had children. Guizot also came in for a share of theobloquy, and made a miserable defence. The result of the whole matterwas that the _entente cordiale_ between the governments of France andEngland was broken,--a great misfortune to Louis Philippe; and theEnglish government was not only indignant in view of this insincerity,treachery, and ambition on the part of the French king, but wasdisappointed in not securing the hand of Queen Isabella for PrinceLeopold of Saxe-Coburg.

Meanwhile corruption became year by year more disgracefully flagrant. Itentered into every department of the government, and only by evidentcorruption did the king retain his power. The eyes of the whole nationwere opened to his selfishness and grasping ambition to increase thepower and wealth of his family. In seven years a thousand million francshad been added to the national debt. The government works beingcompleted, there was great distress among the laboring classes, andgovernment made no effort to relieve it. Consequently, there was anincreasing disaffection among the people, restrained from open violenceby a government becoming every day more despotic. Even the army wasalienated, having reaped nothing but barren laurels in Algeria.Socialistic theories were openly discussed, and so able an historian asLouis Blanc fanned the discontent. The Press grew more and more hostile,seeing that the nation had been duped and mocked. But the most markedfeature of the times was excessive venality. "Talents, energy, andeloquence," says Louis Blanc, "were alike devoted to making money. Evenliterature and science were venal. All elevated sentiments wereforgotten in the brutal materialism which followed the thirst for gold."The foundations of society were rapidly being undermined by dangeroustheories, and by general selfishness and luxury among the middleclasses. No reforms of importance took place. Even Guizot was as muchopposed to electoral extension as the Duke of Wellington. The king inhis old age became obstinate and callous, and would not listen toadvisers. The Prince de Joinville himself complained to his brother ofthe inflexibility of his father. "His own will," said he, "must prevailover everything. There are no longer any ministers. Everything restswith the king."

Added to these evils, there was a failure of the potato crop and amonetary crisis. The annual deficit was alarming. Loans were raisedwith difficulty. No one came to the support of a throne which was feltto be tottering. The liberal Press made the most of the difficulties tofan the general discontent. It saw no remedy for increasing evils but inparliamentary reform, and this, of course, was opposed by government.The Chamber of Deputies, composed of rich men, had lost the confidenceof the nation. The clergy were irrevocably hostile to the government."Yes," said Lamartine, "a revolution is approaching; and it is arevolution of contempt." The most alarming evil was the financial stateof the country. The expenses for the year 1847 were over fourteenhundred millions, nearly four hundred millions above the receipts. Sucha state of things made loans necessary, which impaired thenational credit.

The universal discontent sought a vent in reform banquets, whereinflammatory speeches were made and reported. These banquets extendedover France, attended by a coalition of hostile parties, the chiefs ofwhich were Thiers, Odillon Barrot, De Tocqueville, Garnier-Pages,Lamartine, and Ledru-Rollin, who pointed out the evils of the times. Atlast, in 1848, the opposition resolved on a great banquet in Paris, todefy the government. The radicals sounded the alarm in the newspapers.Terror seized all classes, and public business was suspended, forrevolution was in the air Men said to one another, "They will befighting in the streets soon."

The place selected for the banquet was in one of the retired streetsleading out of the Champs Elysees,--a large open space enclosed bywalls capable of seating six thousand people at table. The proposedbanquet, however, was changed to a procession, extending from the Placeof the Bastille to the Madeleine. The National Guard were invited toattend without their arms, but in uniform. The government was justlyalarmed, for no one could tell what would come of it, although theliberal chiefs declared that nothing hostile was meant. Louis Blanc,however,--socialist, historian, journalist, agitator, leader among theworking classes,--meant blood. The more moderate now began to fear thata collision would take place between the people and the military, andthat they would all be put down or massacred. They were not prepared foran issue which would be the logical effect of the procession, and at theeleventh hour concluded to abandon it. The government, thinking that thecrisis was passed, settled into an unaccountable repose. There were onlytwenty thousand regular troops in the city. There ought to have beeneighty thousand; but Guizot was not the man for the occasion.

Meanwhile the National Guard began to fraternize with the people. Thepopular agitation increased every hour. Soon matters again becameserious. Barricades were erected. There was consternation at theTuileries. A cabinet council was hastily called, with the view of achange of ministers, and Guizot retired from the helm. The crowdthickened in the streets, with hostile intent, and an accidental shotprecipitated the battle between the military and the mob. Thiers washastily sent for at the palace, and arrived at midnight. He refusedoffice unless joined by the man the king most detested, Odillon Barrot.Loath was Louis Philippe to accept this great opposition chief asminister of the interior, but there was no alternative between him andwar. The command of the army was taken from Generals Sebastiani andJacqueminot, and given to Marshal Bugeaud, while General Lamoricieretook the command of the National Guard.

The insurgents were not intimidated. They seized the churches, rang thebells, sacked the gunsmith shops, and erected barricades. The oldmarshal was now hampered by the Executive. He should have been madedictator; but subordinate to the civil power, which was timid andvacillating, he could not act with proper energy. Indeed, he had ordersnot to fire, and his troops were too few and scattered to oppose thesurging mass. The Palais Royal was the first important place to beabandoned, and its pictures and statues were scattered by the triumphantmob. Then followed the attack on the Louvre and the Tuileries; then theabdication of the king; and then his inglorious flight. The monarchyhad fallen.

Had Louis Philippe shown the courage and decision of his earlier years,he might have preserved his throne. But he was now a timid old man, andperhaps did not care to prolong his reign by massacre of his people. Hepreferred dethronement and exile rather than see his capital deluged inblood. Nor did he know whom to trust. Treachery and treason finishedwhat selfishness and hypocrisy had begun. Still, it is wonderful that hepreserved his power for eighteen years. He must have had great tact andability to have reigned so long amid the factions which divided France,and which made a throne surrounded with republican institutions at thattime absurd and impossible.